search_sms_services

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key output (verification price, LTR tiers) and the US non-VoIP scope, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, limitations, or error conditions, so transparency is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler words. Every clause earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential components: what is searched, key output fields, and a scope constraint. It could mention pagination or response format, but these are not critical given the tool's simplicity, so it is nearly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides a 100% coverage description of the 'query' parameter as a substring filter (e.g., 'telegram'). The tool description adds no extra meaning for the parameter, so it matches the baseline for fully documented schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('US non-VoIP SMS services'), making it clear what the tool does. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_dedicated_countries, search_esim_plans, and search_proxies by explicitly scoping to non-VoIP SMS services in the US.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is used for finding SMS verification services, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or situational guidance are provided, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the tool name and siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.